Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 819

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd
(AG2013/199)

TAD-MAR ELECTRICAL PTY LTD SINGLE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Electrical contracting industry
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 7 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The Agreement was not lodged within 14 days after it was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act I consider it fair to extend the time for making this application to 30 January 2013.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 15 February 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 January 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd, an electrical contractor, applied for approval of the Tad-Mar Electrical Pty Ltd Single Enterprise Agreement 2013 under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose over the terms of the agreement, specifically regarding the classification of employees and the associated pay rates. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such matters under the Fair Work Act.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly whether it provided for minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment, and whether it was made in good faith and without coercion. The primary contention was over the classification of employees as either "Electrician" or "Electrical Worker," with different pay rates and conditions attached to each classification. The Commission needed to determine whether the classifications were appropriate and whether the agreement was fair and reasonable.

The Commission found that the agreement did not adequately address the classification of employees, which led to uncertainty in pay rates and conditions. It was noted that the classifications in the agreement did not align with industry standards and were not based on the actual duties performed by the employees. Consequently, the Commission held that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate classification and the need for agreements to be fair and reasonable, reflecting the true nature of the employment relationship.

The Commission refused to approve the agreement and ordered the parties to negotiate a revised agreement that would meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. This included ensuring that employee classifications were accurate and reflective of their roles, and that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established